Not only was the sham license (like the one in this picture) on records and books invalidated. The Supreme Court also invalidated restrictive licenses on the machines (see MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. v. UNIVERSAL FILM MFG. CO., at 243 U.S. 502 (1917) http://supreme.justia.com/us/243/502/case.html ) These types of restrictive licenses were tried by industry after industry in the 20th century. The courts repeatedly tossed them out as incompatible with the First Sale Doctrine (copyright) or the Doctrine of Alienation (same thing, for patent) or as abuse/misuse of the copyright or patent, or as incompatible with the Fair Use Doctrine (copyright). (Google the terms for more details on these doctrines...) It wasn't until 1995 that the courts accepted the idea of a binding mass-market copyright license (ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) at http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.h tml ) The primary statute written to validate this judicial stretch was the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act, which got a lot of press but was rejected in 48/50 states (Virginia and Maryland passed it, everyone else bounced it). A replacement approach is being drafted by the American Law Institute (Principles of the Law of Software Contracts) (contact information at http://www.ali.org/ali/PP16.asp) and these Principles are unlikely to provide a blanket acceptance of all terms in the typical EULA.